World War II was the first conflict in which defeat itself was treated as a crime. The subsequent executions were not an act of justice, but rather an act of revenge carried out by the Allies, who themselves committed numerous war atrocities (particularly the Soviets, but also the Americans and the British). These crimes were never properly investigated because the Allies stood on the victorious side. Moreover, the trials themselves fell far below acceptable legal standards and violated several fundamental principles of Roman law — for example, that no one may judge their own case, and that anonymous denunciations should not be accepted as evidence.
Jews judging their own case – according to Roman law standards noone can judge its own case
Large legal and investigative staffs especially on American part included many Jewish lawyers and émigrés. Notable Jewish prosecutors and staff members included Benjamin Ferencz and Robert M. Kempner.
Dozens of lawyers, investigators, and analysts served at Nuremberg. Many staff members on the American teams and émigré groups were Jewish or of Jewish descent. Official records did not track a precise total count of these individuals. (Comment – no wonder they had personal interest in prosecuting Germans and this undoubtedly affected the process and it’s outcome making it highly biased and pro-Jewish)
- Background: Born in Transylvania in 1920, his family immigrated to New York to escape Jewish persecution, and he later graduated from Harvard Law School.
- The Case: He led what has been called the biggest murder trial in history, utilizing the Nazis’ own meticulous operational reports as primary evidence.
- Outcome: Secured guilty verdicts for all 22 defendants without needing to call a single external witness.
- Dedicated his later decades to Holocaust reparations and the establishment of the International Criminal Court, living until 2023. (comment: as always – it’s all about extorting money)
Accepting low quality (possibly fake) evidence without possibility of cross-examination
During the Nuremberg Tribunal, written witness statements and affidavits were widely used alongside oral testimony. Due to the enormous volume of cases, the Tribunal permitted the submission of written responses to questionnaires and sworn statements in order to expedite the proceedings.
Rules and Regulations
-
Tribunal Charter: Article 19 relieved the court of strict rules of evidence, allowing it to admit any materials deemed to have probative value.
Features of Implementation
-
Written affidavits: Both the prosecution and defense submitted thousands of written statements, particularly regarding technical or incidental facts.
-
Questionnaires: Witnesses who did not appear in person in the courtroom answered questions in writing, after which these forms were entered into the case file.
-
Priority of documents: The organizers of the proceedings relied primarily on printed orders, memoranda, and secret reports from the Third Reich, considering them more reliable than human memory.
Comment: While we could trust original Third Reich documents, however, accepting vast number of written affidavits was a trick used by organizers to accept fake evidence primarily from Jews, who had personal interest in this case.
Vae victis
Although this article does not dispute the war crimes perpetrated by Germans, Soviets, Americans, and other nations, it argues that the Nuremberg Trial fell short of acceptable legal standards. Consequently, it should not be accepted uncritically or treated as an axiomatic reference point for subsequent assertions.